> Where is the original link ? somehow the opening email didn't come
through for me.
IRS coughs up $320M to overhaul website (
http://gcn.com/articles/2012/01/18/irs-spending-320m-on-website-improvements.aspx
)
As the Internal Revenue Service begins accepting returns this week for
gt; -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:gel21...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:02 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: IRS coughs up $320M to overhaul website
>
>
> Even to get a piece of it through Sub Contracts would be awesome.
> And with a c
Where is the original link ? somehow the opening email didn't come through
for me.
-Original Message-
From: Vivec [mailto:gel21...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:02 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: IRS coughs up $320M to overhaul website
Even to get a piece
That's how the Bush admin operated with the contracts for Iraq...
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:54 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: IRS coughs up $320M to overhaul website
If I were a suspicious person, I&
No it could go 5 yrs with 2 option years. That as far as I know is the max.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:10 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: IRS coughs up $320M to overhaul website
Don't they have to rebid every 2
If I were a suspicious person, I'd say that the winners of the contracts
were know before the ink dried on the proposal.
Of course the work will then be subcontracted out to India, . . .
Anyway, no one thinks 320 million is excessive? It's not like you all are
strangers to the industry and don'
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Sam wrote:
> Don't they have to rebid every 2 or 3 years?
My first thought was that it would get a lobotomy every 4 years. Or 8, for
two term presidents.
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Co
Don't they have to rebid every 2 or 3 years?
.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Even to get a piece of it through Sub Contracts would be awesome.
> And with a contract such as this that has a definite lifespan, you know you
> in work for at least a 10 years :-)
>
> This is a co
Even to get a piece of it through Sub Contracts would be awesome.
And with a contract such as this that has a definite lifespan, you know you
in work for at least a 10 years :-)
This is a contract that some companies could literally run off of.
On 26 January 2012 15:16, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
Almost a guarantee that Boeing, Lockheed, or Booze-Hamilton will get
it (the big ones in this area who also do web sites). I doubt if any
of the smaller companies (like CGI or ICF) would get it except as a
sub contract.
But no bets on the gold plating etc. that's how the big government
contractor
Nonsense. There is no way some agency is going to spend 320 million
dollars without knowing how the money is going to be spent and on what,
and when.
But .. 10 years? A bunch of the money better go to future proofing,
otherwise by the time they finish, the technology they started with will
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> The IRS plans to spend $320 million over 10 years to improve its website,
> but the agency's plans on how exactly it will do that remain unclear,
> according to a government watchdog agency.
I'd fully expect step one of any overhaul of th
IRS coughs up $320M to overhaul website (
http://gcn.com/articles/2012/01/18/irs-spending-320m-on-website-improvements.aspx)
As the Internal Revenue Service begins accepting returns this week for the
2012 tax season, the agency has begun a $320 million upgrade over 10 years
to improve its
13 matches
Mail list logo
